[Standards] MUC2

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jun 25 15:59:53 UTC 2015

On 25 June 2015 at 09:27, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:

> Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. We’ve
> pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
> Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? It’s
> not entirely clear to me what these are (users who want anonymity seem to
> already be using throw-away JIDs to achieve that, instead of relying on MUC
> configuration).
> There seems to be some significant merit in having MUCs always be
> non-anonymous in MUC2, to solve some of the addressing messes we’ve found
> ourselves in.

Some thoughts:

I think almost every MUC room I'm in is semi-anonymous.

The only exception I could immediately find was the Openfire chatroom,
open_chat at conference.igniterealtime.org - it seems pretty unlikely that
this is by accident, but perhaps every server does this by default, and
none of the admins have ever noticed. Removing a widely deployed feature
doesn't strike me as a viable option.

I (personally, mind you) would be happy if pseudonymized users in chatrooms
reduced available features. For example, it seems bizarre that in the
typical [semi-]anonymous MUC, I can query a vCard of an "anonymous" user.
So for example I can join the XSF chatroom, and while I cannot discover
Zash's jid, I can find his real name and email address. This strikes me as

I also suspect that if we promoted the usage of anonymizers as a day-to-day
way to shield one's jid, this might have detrimental effects on chatroom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150625/ed8def2a/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list